Finance Committee, 14 Sep 2004

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 14, 2004

Official Report 235KB pdf

---

Scottish Parliament Building

The third item on the agenda is correspondence from the Presiding Officer, which was e-mailed to members yesterday.

In view of recent public concern over security problems in the Parliament, can we consider two items on security costs? Under the heading "Risk drawn down from ‘Construction Reserve'", a figure of £205,000 is shown, with a bracket round it. Then, under the heading "Movement from Contingency to reserve", a figure of £90,000 is shown. Can somebody explain what those two figures represent? Does the £205,000 represent money that is over budget on security? Why is there a bracket round the figure?

I do not think that there is anybody here who can explain that, but we can write to the Presiding Officer with any questions that members have.

I want to add three items to the list of questions that we e-mail. First, can we have clarification on the total sum that is still to be settled? I may not be reading the list of costs correctly, but I struggled to find that sum. Of the £430 million, how much has still to be settled? I am asking not about the number of trade packages but the budgeted sum involved.

If we discover that tens of millions of pounds are still to be settled, and that a huge risk factor is associated with that—because of disputes about late payment and so on—clearly it matters who is carrying out the negotiations. I know that there is some confusion about who is the client, so my second question is, who is currently the client, and is that likely to change? If the Holyrood progress group is being done away with in favour of a "Post Completion Advisory Group", that implies that there has been a change.

The client will remain the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, but there may be an issue over the intermediary on behalf of the SPCB.

Indeed. My three questions would be: what is the budgeted sum still to be settled; if the client is the SPCB, who is currently managing on its behalf; and will the advisory group have a different status from the HPG.

I apologise for being a bit late this morning; I was detained on other business.

I, too, want to ask about the post-completion group and whether the Presiding Officer will clarify how that group will work. For example, will the group report to this committee? Will Parliament have an opportunity to scrutinise its work—in particular its work in trying to recover cash for the public by pursuing legal claims based on negligence or breach of contract?

The Auditor General, in his report that was published three months ago, made the crystal-clear statements that in his view—this was not picked up by the daily press at the time—there had been a lack of systematic assessment of the work as the project team had gone along over the past number of years and that that lack of work might impair the ability successfully to pursue legal action. In other words, proper records might not have been kept and the lack of such records might now prejudice the prospect of recovery. The Auditor General made that very clear in three parts of his report. That was not picked up on in the Audit Committee meeting and it was reported by only one Sunday newspaper. It seems to me that that is the most serious unresolved issue about the whole Holyrood project. I would like to know exactly how the group will be accountable to Parliament.

I would like to make a few other brief points. First, I am extremely concerned that there is a prevailing mood that we want to get on with building a new Scotland instead of talking about a building in Scotland. We all want that, but it should not be at the expense of the truth coming out and legal action being pursued. Nothing must be swept under the carpet—that is what has bedevilled the project all along.

Secondly, on a separate matter, I was concerned that in the recent reporting of security problems it was not made absolutely clear that we all respect and are grateful for the work of the security staff and that whatever the failings have been they have certainly not been by the staff. I would be interested to know about the financial aspects of the staff, because I understand that they are now on shifts of 12 hours, four days on and four days off, which might have involved a change in working patterns. I would like to know what the Presiding Officer has to say about that.

My final point—as far as I can see, it was not reported in this morning's coverage—is that if a private company operating in this building does not put cash in the bank, the first question to be asked is why not and why did it leave the cash hanging around in the safe. I really cannot see how the Parliament's security could have any responsibility for that. That is what I told the press yesterday; that is what has not been reported today, presumably because it does not fit in with various agendas. I just wanted to put that on record and I hope that all members agree with the broad tenor of my remarks on that point.

I certainly do not think that there is an issue of the responsibility lying with the staff of the Parliament.

On the issue that you raised about legal costs and how action on that will proceed, Paul Grice gave us various assurances in June. In the context of the assurances that he provided, it might be appropriate to seek more clarification about the mechanisms through which the assurances can be delivered, as it were, to the Parliament and this committee. That might be a framework in which we can proceed with the matter that you raised.

Migration is pretty much complete now and it is worth recording that although a lot of us had concerns about how that would operate, it has in fact seemed to operate extremely efficiently, because of a huge amount of work by an awful lot of staff working in different departments of the Parliament. An awful lot of people have had to work very hard over the recess period to make migration successful.

That is a good point. Given that this is the opening committee meeting in which we can deal with such matters, perhaps it is appropriate for us to place on record our thanks to all those responsible, particularly the staff of the Parliament, for ensuring a smooth migration and the efficient functioning of the Parliament to this point.

We should include a proviso. It is logical that if, instead of tons of material being sent all over the country, that material had been stored in a warehouse in Edinburgh, the cost could have been an awful lot less.

The point about the staff's effort should be noted and placed properly on record, if members agree. I see members nodding.

There is a detailed schedule of snagging. I wonder whether the snagging issues, as they develop over the next few months, will be reported to Parliament in any form. Will they come to us or to the Audit Committee?

They would probably come in detail to the SPCB, which would have responsibility for them. I presume that if financial issues arose, they would come here in the context of the bi-monthly reports that we should get.

Do we agree to note the report and send off a memo?

I have a couple of comments to make. I note the narrowness of the range between the low end-range and the high end-range for the total cost. The question is whether we can assume that that convergence is a sign that there is confidence about the final total. It is now just over a year since we asked the Holyrood progress group to produce a statement. The group did so on at least a couple of occasions, but it has fallen into not so much disrepute as total absence. We asked for a statement of the original cost plus inflation by package with a comparison of that with the final cost, a statement of the difference and an explanation. I like to think that that at least would be resuscitated towards the end of the process.

That is a fair point for us to make.

Margo MacDonald has just joined us. I am afraid that you have missed our discussion up to now. If there is any issue that you want to raise, you have the opportunity briefly to do so.

I am really sorry. We made inquiries this morning and I thought that I had come in time. I apologise, convener.

We are galloping through our business a bit quicker than usual.

Well, you should have slowed up a bit.

We are raising our game, Margo.

Is it this painful? I liked the old way.

I have two specific issues, which are wrapped up in the general approach. The Presiding Officer has talked about a completions committee—is that what it is called?

Yes.

Do we know the personnel on that committee? It is not the same old faces, it is?

No. We have picked up on that issue and are asking for clarification about various issues relating to the committee. We can reasonably ask for the names of its members.

My second point is more general and concerns something that is puzzling me. I have worked late on one or two nights over the past week or two, so I am aware of the work that is being done 24 hours a day. I find it hard to believe that we can say categorically that we are going to stay within the stated end figure. Judging by the number of people who are working and the sort of work that they are doing, I would have thought that huge overtime payments would be merited. I am told that a lot of the workers are travelling through from Glasgow, which adds to the cost. I find it difficult to see how we can put an end cost on the work. I am not complaining; I am just asking why we are doing that.

That is similar to an issue that was raised earlier in the committee. We will write to the Presiding Officer seeking clarification on several issues that have been raised. We will then report back to members of the committee. If you would like to be copied into that, we can get that response to you.

I would, yes. Thank you.